Why not be a Jain

[Adamantine]

we have vastly different experiences with Tibetan lamas then... must be karma

[ronnewmexico]

Yeah...whatever.

[LastLegend]

Hello Ron. How are you?

Well I agree with all that lastly said, well said and communicated.

That is true...my point is that.
I will add this part which is not stated....
Western buddhists are constricting buddhism to fit jainist ideal is my observation. One may imply things such as...well buddists in my schools can not have gun can not do this do that....well no...not really... they generallly do not say such things. Buddhism is the middle way called for many reasons, it is quite complex. Complex is the response to most all things..they must be fully considered, not filled by reason of ideology or quote of scripture generally.
In some things that suffices but in many not.

1)Buddhism does not say you cannot have guns. But a true Buddhist as someone who follows the teachings of Buddha that does not care for his/her body will not have a gun, from my understanding, he/she would rather be killed than to kill without holding grudge at all. But it seems like there are not many of these around nowadays...So this brings to a very important point. If your village is being invaded, what would you do as Buddhists? Vietnam for example has stood up to her enemies many times in the past. When our family is in danger, what would we do? I think this is a test of compassion for both family members and invaders and all sentient beings. It is a test of our Dharma, and/or faith in Dharma.

2) As for complex and flexible, I think we have to be very careful since we are not enlightened, and cannot foresee the consequences. So in other words, we don't have the wisdom of Bodhisattvas and Buddhas to discern all situations.

3) Karma of killing is very serious because all sentient being value their lives, their bodies. So when we kill them, they will hold grudge and will come back and get us. I don't believe in accidents. If someone gets killed, I believe that someone has killed in the past. Like the Saky Clan of Buddha has got wiped because in their past life, they were fishermen who have killed a big fish [if I remember correctly]. So karma of killing is serious. That’s why it is the first one on precepts.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Why be anything?

[ronnewmexico]

LL..I agree with all your points and they are well said, and personally I know that is how things work to my opinion. The issue is however one of complexity.
It is not that things are not that way but in buddhism one must ascertain each and every circumstance to make determinations of correct action.
There is generally not good or bad action but correct action. thta it is spoken of in that fashion says something.

Quite often to my experience buddhist of a certain type take a shortcut, and abscribe things of absolute action to buddhism. There are some but they are very very small in number and scope.The buddha for instance said if one kills ones father or mother one is subject to hell and basically the dharma is of no use to them....That says something beyond the basic of what it says. It says there is a differentiation between types of killing.
ONe may apparently kill in this fashion but it does not imply such is ones fate for all killing. So we must then qualify what is said in each instance by things like this example.

IN jainism it is that simple..never ever kill. So if many certain buddhists are inclined to disregard the complexity of buddhism would they not be best served by having this simple vehicle instead of trying to make buddhism that simple vehicle of absolutes, as I explain with the killing example.
I would suppose their absolute findings speak from a different apprehension of buddhism that allows for absolutism to be found in it. Absolutes usually derive from absolutes and in this manner probably the notions such as soul are really not done away with but continue as Thurman's opinions speak to perhaps. So they find absolute basis in buddhist thought when really there is none..better for them a real thing with absolutes..jainism with a real soul to be found.

Is it really not there...sure it is not by my logical reasoning, but they still think it is or they would not be talking absolutes in buddhism. So all they need to do really is know of this vehicle and study it and make choice. REAlly if they conitnue to hold soul absolute action and such things yet claim emptiness is not emptiness just a profound flower they put in their hair to look good?

Padme....I hold to no religion, useing only tool of religion for purpose. And agree with you on that. But I have added that mention only to qualify this as not personal but a debateable item. Some may think...oh poor fellow he knows not what buddhism is about we must show him, or he is a idiot who knows not what buddhism is about and is trying to convert us.....I mentioned that as really I have no dog in this fight. If people take this discussion in that fashion it is counterproductive for communication or discussion of a real sort.
Yes I hold that position you mention, but it is a personal position..

As a aside....This is why jains will never be part and parcel of nation states nor be a seperate nation but buddhism certainly does both. Jains will not abscribe to killing of human in any form nor the establishement of armies and such things, it is counter to core beliefts.But in buddhism we find both. Mr. Snyder speaks to that in the first response a little bit...that is a bit aside to topic but buddhism would not evolve as it did if such things were not found in it...some killing and some soldiering in certain contexts..they are not strictly outlawed..in Jainism they are.

This is not a thread about killing or guns(shuddder) but about other things as stated...absolutes and better vehicles for those that hold absolute views.

[gregkavarnos]

I don't think that Jain notions of not killing differ from Buddhist teachings:

Right action (samyak-karmānta / sammā-kammanta) can also be translated as "right conduct". As such, the practitioner should train oneself to be morally upright in one's activities, not acting in ways that would be corrupt or bring harm to oneself or to others. In the Chinese and Pali Canon, it is explained as:
And what is right action? Abstaining from taking life, from stealing, and from illicit sex [or sexual misconduct]. This is called right action.
—Saccavibhanga Sutta

And what, monks, is right action? Abstaining from taking life, abstaining from stealing, abstaining from unchastity: This, monks, is called right action.
—Magga-vibhanga Sutta

For the lay follower, the Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta elaborates:

And how is one made pure in three ways by bodily action? There is the case where a certain person, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from the taking of life. He dwells with his... knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. Abandoning the taking of what is not given, he abstains from taking what is not given. He does not take, in the manner of a thief, things in a village or a wilderness that belong to others and have not been given by them. Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man. This is how one is made pure in three ways by bodily action.

Yup, looks pretty clear from where I am standing!

[ronnewmexico]

Yes, and you are welcome to your opinion. This thread is however not about killing found in buddhism and its context but as to subject matter described.

If such does derail in that fashion I will do what I can to have it deleted and certain not participate in my own thread.
The gun thread already in existance touches quite in depth on that issue and is already present on the forum for input. Or another thread can be started..this is not that thread.

[gregkavarnos]

Who's talking about guns? I am comparing Jain ideals to Buddhist ideals in regards to killing by framing the Buddhist viewpoint. That is completely within the topic of the thread.

[ronnewmexico]

No it is not..the perameters of this thread are pretty clearly identified, such are not the subject matter, and I desire this thread not to be derailed in this fashion....

I initiated the thread and reserve right to qualify intention. I suppose it is already qualified but it is furthur qualified.
It is not about that.

[gregkavarnos]

So let's see if I can get this straight. One of the things that you are saying in this thread, is that if a Buddhist takes a stance on killing, or vegetarianism (for example) that seems to accord with the Jain stance (even if it is in accord with the words of the Buddha) then they should just go and become a Jain?

Sounds a bit simplistic to me.

There are some irreconcilable differences between Jainism and Buddhism which would act as a "that's why not" to what you propose.

(Am I on topic now?)

[ronnewmexico]

No that is not my point it is a simplistic version of my point to make point.
REad my threads earlier and you will see my basic point and elaboration upon it.

[adinatha]

Really we should not be personally insulting from the get go..I went to a religious school as a young child..the children were heinous , hating eachother and treating eachother badly. In public school this was not the situation, children seemed to have heart for one another..
So this...."One would only advocate this based on a misunderstanding of even the most basic principals of dharma. "..please refrain from being insulting. I know you may want to extend point but there is nothing that says we cannot discuss this as person to person and not insult eachother.
The buddhists on this board practicing great compassion, seem like those children practicing anything but. If we cannot talk to eachother as reasonably equal but talking down one to another we will never communicate it is impossible.

My intention was not to insult. My point is that if someone accepts impermanence is a fact, then advocating someone take up a false doctrine of permanence would be stupid.

This is a quote from another site on pure land.....
"There is a sutra mentioned by Buddha Sakyamuni that in the dharma ending era where sentient beings' lack of wisdom to aware Suchness. There is none amongst a Billion and billion of people could possibly achieve complete fruition of Bodhi besides Pure Land. 《大集經》云： 末法億億人修行，罕一得道；唯依念佛，得度生死。 The advice is to learn insight contained in all school but destination towards Pure Land, the higher wisdom you achieve, the higher abode of Pure Land you will be here & there. The highest is Buddha equal enlightenment of Pure Land :
Basically these times are such none can achieve full buddhahood as human, but can go to pure lands and then from there attain buddhahood.

We have masters who have achieved complete buddhahood in their human body, masters alive or dying right now. So, therefore, I must contend that the Pure Land sutras are garbage.

And I have heard a equlivency in tibetan buddhism. I could probably provide quote but it would be a extensive endeavor. The point is relatively common we must go somewhere else a pure land or some similiar place to become fully enlightened, a buddha.

Vajrayana is very clear. Buddhahood in this body, in this life. Perhaps it is a difficult task, but it can be done.

The body it is thought a product of karma and cannot entertain fully enlightenment. It speaks of a limitation or effectual by karma the reason to be in a human body.

What happens is one's negative karma is purified, and the physical body will manifest severe sickness, i.e., Lord Jigten Sumgon contracted leprosy. Once that is purified, the nirmanakaya can and will manifest.

Buddhas have not a body of our sort. Our sort is produced by karma. So thusly one cannot be a buddha in a human body. In this school of thinking a buddha is a emenation not a real human..the two things are impossible.
Not all certainly agree with that, there are variants of opinion but those are not unknown nor unusual.

A buddha's physical body is produced by incalculable merit. So it to is produced by karma. This is in all the standard sutras. Karma is fundamental law.

To be clear on jainism (though I am no expert) they consider a different thing. This realm and all things cycle in and out in a definitive form. In each cycle there are so many tirthankars that appear to teach when exactly needed so those that are trapped in this realm can find a way out.

This is just like the Hindu avatar. These are samsaric. How a samsaric existence is somehow favorable is just in your mind.

It is not perhaps random as in buddhism but considered in these cycles specific things that happen and a set amount of tirthankaras that appear at stages in the cycle. So is considered the soul having the nature of all things is very compassionate. When one attains enlightenment they do not necessarily become a tirthankar as there is no need for one. When needed they may become one if necessary such being the soul nature of things compassionate.
So that explains it a bit. They also at times consider that humans may not be in a suitable time for full enlightenment.

Samsaric views also have compassion. But they don't recognize bodhicitta.

Jains do not consider that there realm of enlighenment is a formless realm. One does not have form.... true.... but that does not formless realm make.

They don't know about all the levels of samsara that the buddha knows about, because they are in samsara, and the Buddha is beyond it.

Attachement concept of self remain in buddhism in formless realm. In Tibetan buddhism there are four basic formless realms with differing causes and differing results thusly in each. In jainism in that place soul remains but all is of soul and like one, when karma is removed. Karma it is that is considered to lead to our obstructions and pain and suffering. Once the negative karma is removed such soul remains pure.

Jains think karma is a sticky substance that glues you to the world. Jains are materialists.

AScetisim is a means to remove this karma but also is removing caused by producing no suffering. ONe cannot simply be a ascetic and then expect to have a pure soul. ONe must also produce no harm and act compassionately as all souls are as human souls are, even the lowest microbe.

It's an admirable view, one that can produce merit. But not enough to go beyond samsara. An arhat's path is probably less taxing then the Mahayana path. People like Daniel Ingram claim to have achieved this level by doing several one month retreats and working on it at home in his spare time. The method is anapanasati and basic vipashyana.

Many buddhist say not this in the west ..."Buddhism is more flexible than Jainism and give people latitude to be strictly vegetarian and pacifist. It does't make them a Jain."...they firmly state buddhist must be vegetarians must not ever kill must not have any weapons and many other things with no degree of flexibility. As perhaps davadeeta did they do. Buddhism then gives them right to be inflexible or flexible only that they may say we may only do those things and be buddhist....this seems not flexible.
Should not those people then more rightly be in a inflexible vehicle?

You are really fixating on categories. I don't see the world like that. There is nothing wrong with vegetarianism. But there is nothing wrong with eating meat either. There's a story when Milarepa was eating meat, and some yogi was chastising him for eating it. Milarepa use his power to make the guy's bowl of rice look like worms. The point was that farming kills countless sentient beings, and his meat was just one. Compassion alone is not sufficient for realization. Compassion must be joined to wisdom.

Again..."If one doesn't understand these basics"..we can talk to each other as holders of different opinion but must talk to each other with respect and consideration...I disagree with what you say or this or basically this consideration is wrong, or other things can be said, approximating the same thing respectfully.

I'm giving you my opinion. If one accepts impermanence is fact, then advocating an extremist view would be stupid.

I am not advocating that one with a view of emptiness advocate this thing...but how many have view or only express learned view...it seems many.
As to emptiness stopping even the most basic of defilements I have heard great lamas say they employ methods of a courser nature such as just avoiding a situation or some means to prevent defilement rather than just relying on knowing emptiness. Few say...I know emptiness I have realized this and thusly have not that defilement. Perhaps it is with intention of not appearing great to be humble...but if such is always said.... well then to those that hear this always....what the point of emptiness if it cannot remove our defilements?...it seems quite useless if we must still employ means to stop defilements.

I know there are lamas who emphasize relative behaviors rather than ultimate wisdom. My experience with these folks is that they are not realized lamas and probably shouldn't be teaching. But that won't stop them from wanting to and doing it anyway. There are instructions students can use on how to assess a lama.

I know one must employ means to attain realization of emptiness but why then after one has and is a great teacher....why do they not say yes they are gone...generally they do not.

I don't understand this statement. Realizing emptiness doesn't mean you are gone. It means conceptualization is gone. The realization is very clear.

If they so fear their followers may hear such a thing and not be able to do such a thing...then their followers should be jain..at least they could do that thing and remove defilements through that means. Buddhist means and jain means having difference but both having result of removing gross defilements.
Why teach the profound if none apparently get it...at least not enough to remove defilements presentation.....it seems pointless. Far easier method for these people would seem suitable.

Well look at this Akhyung Lama. He has 7000 practitioners at his gar. He taught everything and still managed to attain rainbow body. Now that's a lama.

[ronnewmexico]

I don't know..."We have masters who have achieved complete buddhahood in their human body, masters alive or dying right now. So, therefore, I must contend that the Pure Land sutras are garbage."..this is not a tibetan buddhist site of some other specific site it is a general site..

I do believe pure land is a valid form of buddhism as many consider it. It is not summarily excluded. So we must consider this thinking as a part of buddhism. So my point extends to them as well.. Saying my point is not valid as these are not buddhists....that is not a truthful statement, they are considered so.

Many may be, in Tibetan buddhism, enlightened as human...show me a buddha as human enlightened in tibetan buddhism...you will not find one in my studied form.
After perfection of the tenth bhumi, one attains buddhahood. In forms of tibetan buddhism, that do exist, one does not make this transition as a human, from human, to buddhahood. From human, tenth bhumi to buddha that is not done.
Maybe your form of tibetan buddhism has that, if you are tibetan buddhist, which it seems you may be, but some apparently do not.

So we are reasonably talking some buddhist here, pure land also included, and my contention remains.... not all buddhists, but some, may be better served by jainism.

This..."I don't understand this statement. Realizing emptiness doesn't mean you are gone. It means conceptualization is gone. The realization is very clear...the defilements should be gone. Emptiness considered even in this conventional fashion as human will remove defilements when realized.

Thrangu rinpoche and HHDL: state quite often that this means of emptiness may be employed. But when then quaried in detail, about their personal defilement approachments, they state not emptiness as vehicle, but other vehicle. Which as vehicle, has equal result.... such as exchangeing oneself with another or considering all as ones mother, ot just not getting in the situatiion at all...but they are not useing this thing of emptiness to its best purpose seemingly.
So if it is such a good thing to know as human, why are not even the greatest amongst us employing this to such means?
Would, if we were not appropriate for it.... be not better we study only the other means... throwing emptiness far away?

Why bother with it. Better we just do exchange, or employ other means, or follow jainism?

The buddha did not teach everything to everyone. It is clear he had levels of teachings to those of differing quality. So perhaps in this degenerate age emptiness...is but about always or quite often, something we may use, and show around, a ego extension, serving not purpose but serving perhaps to detriment.

Emptiness to my view is compassion and always presents in realization of even the slightest sort of nonintellectual consideration, as compassion.... acting nicely to peoples and things. I hear great talk of that............. but really can buddhists even go on a internet site and talk without insulting one another and doing bad things...seemingly not..so what purpose this emptiness? I can fine many things right here on this site where such is done, right before us. A buddhist site.... actually most sport sites are more friendly agreeable places. This replicates my experience as child described. It seems but conceptual in origin, sometimes this thing.... and thusly but one or another thing one must carry around protect and attend to...seemingly really useless.

Not all are like that, certainly...but for those that are, is jainism not the better teaching? Would they pehaps then be a bit more compassionate in action not having this heavy load of emptiness around which apparently just makes them grouchy and mean to one another?

[adinatha]

Many may be in Tibetan buddhism enlightened as human...show me a buddha as human enlightened in tibetan buddhism...you will not find one.

Wrong.

After perfection of the tenth bhumi one attains buddhahood. In forms of tibetan buddhism that do exist one does not make this transition as a human from human to buddhahood.

wrong.

So we are reasonably talking some buddhist here, and my contention remains not all buddhists but some may be better served by jainism.

better served by sravakayana

This..."I don't understand this statement. Realizing emptiness doesn't mean you are gone. It means conceptualization is gone. The realization is very clear...the defilements should be gone. Emptiness considered even in this conventional fashion as human will remove defilements when realized.

Of course emptiness is empty of defilements.

Thrangu rinpoche and HHDL: state quite often that this means of emptiness may be employed but when then quaried in detail about their personal defilement approachments they state not emptiness as vehicle but other vehicle.

Yeah, it's called Vajrayana. One utilizes the deity yoga of two-stages to realize emptiness.

Which has equal result such as exchangeing oneself with another or considering all as ones mother, ot just not getting in the situatiion at all...but they are not useing this thing of emptiness to its best purpose seemingly.

These methods you mentioned are preliminary practices to Vajrayana or are general Mahayana approaches used within Vajrayana. You can't realize emptiness with tonglen.

So if it is such a good thing to know as human why are not even the greatest amongst us employing this to such means?

They also speak on deity yoga and mahamudra and dzogchen. You should keep reading.

Would if we were not appropriate for it be not better we study only the other means throwing emptiness far away?

Absolutely not.

The buddha did not teach everything to everyone it is clear he had levels of teachings to those of differing quality. So perhaps in this degenerate age emptiness...is but about always something we may use and show around a ego extension servind not purpose but also to detriment.

In this degenerate age, Vajrayana is even more effective. People merely need to show interest and participation and they will get the methods.

Emptiness to my view is compassion and always presents in realization of even the slightest sort of nonintellectual sort as compassion acting nicely to peoples and things. I hear great talk of that but really can buddhists even go on a internet site and talk without insulting oneanother and doing bad things...seemingly not..so what purpose this emptiness? It seems but conceptual in origin and thusly but one or another thing one must carry around protect and attend to...seemingly really useless.

The purpose of emptiness is happiness, not for shmoozing. I never said anything to insult you. You took it that way, because you're projecting. Basically, you are entitled to your opinion. But then you stated reasons that are clearly based on faulty reasoning. I pointed that out. I guess you felt the pinch. Get over it.

Not all are like that certainly...but for those that are is jainism not the better teaching?

Most certainly not.

[ronnewmexico]

Hmmm..I guess then our conversation on this matter has ended.
NIce talking to you. Have a good day.

[gregkavarnos]

These methods you mentioned are preliminary practices to Vajrayana or are general Mahayana approaches used within Vajrayana. You can't realize emptiness with tonglen.

Actually I think you may find that you can.

Would if we were not appropriate for it be not better we study only the other means throwing emptiness far away?

Absolutely not.

I agree 100%, Buddhism without emptiness would not be Buddhism. If you do want to throw emptiness out of Buddhism then, yes, Jainism would be the answer (or some form of dualistic Hinduism).

[adinatha]

Hmmm..I guess then our conversation on this matter has ended.
NIce talking to you. Have a good day.

One thing you should be aware of with respect to Vajrayana is that it is a very fast path. So fast that one can have a realization of emptiness long before one's behavior is smoothed out. His Holiness Taklung Matul Rinpoche said that one enters the path of seeing and then later one's negative habits recede, these habits are like scars. Of course I have so many defilements. Handling folks roughly is one of them. Many lamas are very hot headed, but the way you know they are realizing Mahamudra is that they will also let it go right away. One moment shouting and the next moment laughing like a baby. Once a person enters seriously into Vajrayana the manners of polite society are out the window. So sorry if hurt you. Now I'll give you a kiss.

[adinatha]

These methods you mentioned are preliminary practices to Vajrayana or are general Mahayana approaches used within Vajrayana. You can't realize emptiness with tonglen.

Actually I think you may find that you can.

Mahayana is the 3 eons deal. If you have past life merit, then of course you can. But mahayana is not a fast path.

Would if we were not appropriate for it be not better we study only the other means throwing emptiness far away?

Absolutely not.

I agree 100%, Buddhism without emptiness would not be Buddhism. If you do want to throw emptiness out of Buddhism then, yes, Jainism would be the answer (or some form of dualistic Hinduism).

No. If you can't realize emptiness, then at least you should have faith in the Three Jewels, make offerings, do tonglen, do noble 8-fold path, do vinaya, make seven offerings, do prostrations, shamatha and vipashyana, Vajrasattva and mandala. Then, in a future life, you will have the merit to fully realize emptiness.

[gregkavarnos]

No. If you can't realize emptiness, then at least you should have faith in the Three Jewels, make offerings, do tonglen, do noble 8-fold path, do vinaya, make seven offerings, do prostrations, shamatha and vipashyana, Vajrasattva and mandala. Then, in a future life, you will have the merit to fully realize emptiness.

Why? Buddhism does not have the monopoly on the accumulation of merit without a view of emptiness. Merit is merit, when it is accumulated in a dualistic manner I believe it doesn't matter what its source is. I don't think that merit comes with a brand name attached.

Merit accumulated through Buddhist practice whilst clinging to a notion of me will have the same outcome as non-Buddhist...

Otherwise we are just clinging to -isms.

[adinatha]

No. If you can't realize emptiness, then at least you should have faith in the Three Jewels, make offerings, do tonglen, do noble 8-fold path, do vinaya, make seven offerings, do prostrations, shamatha and vipashyana, Vajrasattva and mandala. Then, in a future life, you will have the merit to fully realize emptiness.

Why? Buddhism does not have the monopoly on the accumulation of merit without a view of emptiness. Merit is merit, when it is accumulated in a dualistic manner I believe it doesn't matter what its source is. I don't think that merit comes with a brand name attached.

Merit accumulated through Buddhist practice whilst clinging to a notion of me will have the same outcome as non-Buddhist...

Otherwise we are just clinging to -isms.

Because the merit you get from aspiration and action bodhicitta is incalculably vast. Read the Diamond Sutra. The merit that comes from saving Earth creatures is very limited in comparison and the fruit is a samsaric existence. So Buddhism has a total monopoly on incalculably vast merit that comes from bodhicitta. Arhats have similarly limited compassion but they have some realization of bodhicitta, up to the Sixth Bhumi (per Lord Jigten Sumgon's teachings).